--- title: "Oklahoma: AI rules for lawyers" url: "https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/oklahoma" type: "jurisdiction" site: "AI Law Framework" id: "US-OK" kind: "state" country: "US" parent: "United States" last_checked: "2026-10-31" as_of: "2026-10-31" last_reviewed: "2026-11-03" --- # Oklahoma: AI rules for lawyers > Oklahoma: court and regulator AI instruments and the tasks that change here. Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/jurisdictions/oklahoma Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt ## What this means for lawyers The Supreme Court of Oklahoma has issued a court-wide administrative order (SCAD-2026-17, 23 March 2026). It does not discourage AI use in Oklahoma courts if the use complies with legal and ethical standards. It says disclosure of AI assistance shall not be required in a legal filing, and that everyone filing documents in Oklahoma courts is responsible for their content and accuracy. If you file anything in the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) and generative AI produced or changed any part of it, a person responsible for the document must verify that part as accurate. Failure can lead to waiver of the affected issue, striking of the document and/or contempt. The rule is in force from 18 February 2026. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma has publicly reprimanded a lawyer (reciprocal discipline) over fabricated AI citations. It said AI use is not inherently problematic if lawyers protect client confidentiality and verify what they sign, and that signing unverified AI citations shows reckless disregard for the truth. In federal court in Oklahoma, check the individual judge or court. The Western District of Oklahoma Bankruptcy Court requires an attestation for any document drafted using generative AI (from 1 September 2023). Chief Judge Palk of the Western District of Oklahoma requires disclosure of the tool and a certification of accuracy. As at 31 October 2026. ## Telling the court and the client **Tell the court:** Varies by court Court disclosure: no in Oklahoma state courts. The Supreme Court's order says disclosure of AI assistance shall not be required in a legal filing, and the OCCA requires verification, not disclosure. Yes in some federal courts: an attestation is required in the W.D. Okla. Bankruptcy Court, and disclosure plus certification is required before Chief Judge Palk. Client disclosure/consent: no rule found. The Supreme Court's Reeves opinion refers to the duty to protect client confidentiality when using AI, but states no consent requirement. - [Re: Generative Artificial Intelligence, SCAD-2026-17 (Administrative Order; 2026 OK 19)](https://www.oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=appellate&number=SCAD-2026-17) - [Rule 1.17 Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence](https://okcca.net/rules/rule-1.17) - [General Order 23-01, Pleadings Using Generative Artificial Intelligence](https://www.okwb.uscourts.gov/sites/okwb/files/GenOrder23-01.pdf) - [Disclosure and Certification Requirements – Generative Artificial Intelligence](https://www.okwd.uscourts.gov/sites/okwd/files/AI_Guidelines_JudgePalk.pdf) - [State of Oklahoma ex rel. OBA v. Reeves, 2026 OK 37](https://websitedc.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/STATE_OF_OKLAHOMA_ex_rel._OBA_v._REEVES.pdf) **Tell the client:** Unclear Same basis and sources as above. ## Last checked Last checked 31 October 2026. ## What changed in Oklahoma in the last 12 months - 27 May 2026 · Dated: [State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Reeves, 2026 OK 37 (attorney discipline, AI-fabricated citations)](#ai-rule-jr-us-ok-sc-reeves-2026-ok-37) - 23 March 2026 · Dated: [Re: Generative Artificial Intelligence, SCAD-2026-17 (Administrative Order; 2026 OK 19)](#ai-rule-jr-us-ok-sc-scad-2026-17-genai) - 18 February 2026 · Dated: [Rule 1.17 Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (Order Adopting New Procedural Rule, 2026 OK CR 7)](#ai-rule-jr-us-ok-occa-rule-1-17-genai) ## AI instruments ### Courts and tribunals #### State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Reeves, 2026 OK 37 (attorney discipline, AI-fabricated citations) - Type: Judgment - Issuer: Supreme Court of Oklahoma - Date on page: 27 May 2026 - Effective date: 27 May 2026 - Status: 27 May 2026; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://websitedc.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/STATE_OF_OKLAHOMA_ex_rel._OBA_v._REEVES.pdf In reciprocal discipline, the Court publicly reprimanded an Oklahoma lawyer who had been sanctioned and disciplined in other jurisdictions for using generative AI to fabricate citations in two federal motions. The Court said there is nothing inherently problematic with generative AI in preparing legal materials if lawyers protect client confidentiality and verify the pleadings they sign. It said signing pleadings with unverified AI citations shows reckless disregard for the truth. It found violations of ORPC 1.3, 3.2, 3.3 and 8.4(d) and RGDP 1.3. Key points: - Human diligence and review is required to ensure content and accuracy of filed documents - Generative AI use is not inherently improper if confidentiality and verification duties are met - Knowledge for ORPC 3.3 purposes may be inferred from circumstances; knowingly not verifying AI citations is a knowingly false statement - Cites the Supreme Court's AI order SCAD-2026-17 (all persons filing in Oklahoma courts are responsible for content and accuracy) - Opinion marked as not released for publication; subject to revision or withdrawal Text confirmed from an OSCN-format print hosted on a third-party S3 URL; the official OSCN copy was not fetched. Confidence kept at medium for that reason. #### Re: Generative Artificial Intelligence, SCAD-2026-17 (Administrative Order; 2026 OK 19) - Type: Court rule or order · Administrative order - Issuer: Supreme Court of Oklahoma - Date on page: 23 March 2026 - Effective date: 23 March 2026 - Status: 23 March 2026; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=appellate&number=SCAD-2026-17 The Supreme Court of Oklahoma said increasing use of generative AI in Oklahoma courts is expected and that it does not discourage AI use in Oklahoma courts if the use complies with legal and ethical standards. Disclosure of AI assistance shall not be required in a legal filing. All persons filing documents in Oklahoma courts are responsible for the content and accuracy of the documents. All Justices concurred. Key points: - AI use in Oklahoma courts is not discouraged if it complies with legal and ethical standards - Disclosure of AI assistance shall not be required in a legal filing - Every person filing documents in Oklahoma courts is responsible for their content and accuracy - Order text is available as a PDF from the OSCN docket (document #1064718569); cited in Reeves, 2026 OK 37, ¶21 #### Rule 1.17 Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (Order Adopting New Procedural Rule, 2026 OK CR 7) - Type: Court rule or order · Court rule - Issuer: Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals - Date on page: 18 February 2026 - Effective date: 18 February 2026 - Status: 18 February 2026; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://okcca.net/cases/2026/OK-CR-7/ Where generative AI has been used in drafting any document filed in the Court of Criminal Appeals, the party or counsel must ensure that any portion produced or modified by generative AI has been verified as accurate by a person responsible for the document. Non-compliance may lead to sanctions including waiver of the affected issues, striking of the document and/or contempt. It applies only to filings in that court. Key points: - Verification duty for any AI-produced or AI-modified portion of a filing - No disclosure or certification of AI use is required by the rule text - Sanctions: waiver of issues on appeal, striking of document, contempt - Generative AI defined as any AI that generates content or data in response to a user prompt or query Order text and Rule 1.17 text confirmed on okcca.net (order page and https://okcca.net/rules/rule-1.17). The citation 2026 OK CR 7 comes from the page URL path; the extracted page text does not repeat it. #### General Order 23-01: Pleadings Using Generative Artificial Intelligence - Type: Court rule or order · Administrative order - Issuer: U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Western District of Oklahoma - Date on page: 2023-07 - Effective date: 1 September 2023 - Status: 1 September 2023; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.okwb.uscourts.gov/sites/okwb/files/GenOrder23-01.pdf Any document filed with the Bankruptcy Court that was drafted using a generative AI program must be accompanied by an attestation. The attestation must identify the program and the portions drafted with it, certify accuracy checking using print reporters, traditional legal databases or other reliable means, and certify that no confidential information was disclosed to unauthorised parties. Rule 9011 continues to apply. Key points: - Attestation required for documents drafted using generative AI - Must identify the program and specific AI-drafted portions - Must certify accuracy checking and no unauthorised disclosure of confidential information - Applies to filings in the W.D. Okla. Bankruptcy Court #### Disclosure and Certification Requirements – Generative Artificial Intelligence - Type: Court rule or order · Standing order - Issuer: U.S. District Court, Western District of Oklahoma (Chambers of Chief Judge Palk) - Date on page: none shown - Effective date: Not stated - Status: none shown; start date not confirmed - Last checked 31 October 2026 - URL: https://www.okwd.uscourts.gov/sites/okwd/files/AI_Guidelines_JudgePalk.pdf Consistent with FRCP 11(b), any party or counsel using a generative AI tool to prepare any document to be filed with the Court must disclose in the document that AI was used and which tool. The person must also certify they have checked the accuracy of AI-drafted portions, including citations and legal authority. Failure may lead to sanctions. Key points: - Disclose AI use and the specific tool in the document - Certify accuracy of AI-drafted content including all citations - Filer is responsible under Rule 11 and professional conduct rules - Failure to disclose or certify may result in sanctions ## Sources - Supreme Court of Oklahoma: [State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Reeves, 2026 OK 37 (attorney discipline, AI-fabricated citations)](https://websitedc.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/STATE_OF_OKLAHOMA_ex_rel._OBA_v._REEVES.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Supreme Court of Oklahoma: [Re: Generative Artificial Intelligence, SCAD-2026-17 (Administrative Order; 2026 OK 19)](https://www.oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=appellate&number=SCAD-2026-17) · last checked 31 October 2026 - Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals: [Rule 1.17 Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (Order Adopting New Procedural Rule, 2026 OK CR 7)](https://okcca.net/cases/2026/OK-CR-7/) · last checked 31 October 2026 - U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Western District of Oklahoma: [General Order 23-01: Pleadings Using Generative Artificial Intelligence](https://www.okwb.uscourts.gov/sites/okwb/files/GenOrder23-01.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - U.S. District Court, Western District of Oklahoma (Chambers of Chief Judge Palk): [Disclosure and Certification Requirements – Generative Artificial Intelligence](https://www.okwd.uscourts.gov/sites/okwd/files/AI_Guidelines_JudgePalk.pdf) · last checked 31 October 2026 - [Rule 1.17 Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence](https://okcca.net/rules/rule-1.17) · last checked 31 October 2026 ## Key facts - Kind: State - Task versions written for this jurisdiction: 0 - AI instruments recorded: 5 *Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*